Dazey Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 304 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of DAZEY CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9, PETITIONER
In the Matter of DAZEY CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and METAL POLISH-
ERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS, INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
13, AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 14-R-1720 and 14-RC-34, respectively
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
November 15, 1948
On May 3, 1948, the National Labor Relations Board issued a De-
cision and Order in Case No. 14-RC-34, dismissing the Metal Polish-
ers' petition, which sought to sever from an existing unit,' a unit
comprising all the employees in the plating department of the Em-
ployer's plant at St. Louis, Missouri? The Board found that these
plating employees did not possess any craft skills and, therefore,
could not constitute an appropriate unit.
In its Decision and Order the Board noted that the Metal Polishers
already represented a unit of polishers, buffers, and apprentices at the
plant involved,3 and that in another case 4 the Board had found appro-
priate a unit of buffers and platers, as the buffers were a nucleus of
skilled employees to which the relatively unskilled platers might prop-
erly be attached. However, in the absence of any request by the Metal
Polishers in its original petition in the instant case for the attachment
of the platers to the existing unit of polishers and buffers, the Board
stated in effect that it was unnecessary to consider the applicability to
the instant case of the Electric Auto-lite decision.
3 This unit comprised all the production and maintenance employees at the plant in-
volved except for a craft group of polishers , buffers, and apprentices , with respect to whom
the Metal Polishers had already been certified as the bargaining agent in Matter of Dazey
Corporation, 73 N. L. R. B. 788.
2 Matter of Dazey Corporation, 77 N. L . R. B. 408.
2 See fn. 1, supra.
4 Matter of The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 1189.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 64.
304
DAZEY CORPORATION 305
On May 10, 1948, the Board received from the Metal Polishers a
motion to amend its petition so as to add the platers-to the existing unit
of polishers and buffers. This motion was denied on procedural
grounds. The Metal Polishers has since filed a motion requesting the
Board to reinstate the Metal Polishers' original petition and seeking to
amend it by adding the platers to the existing unit of polishers and
buffers. Although afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the
parties has expressed any objection to the granting of this motion.5
The Board 6 has, accordingly, determined to grant this motion and to
reconsider its Decision and Order in Case No. 14-RC-34 in the light of
the petition so amended.
We now find that the platers, if they so desire, may, together with
the polishers, buffers, and apprentices, constitute an appropriate unit.
However, we shall make no unit determination pending the outcome
of the election directed below. If, in this election, the employees in
the voting group described below select the Metal Polishers, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the same unit
with the polishers, buffers and apprentices; otherwise, we shall dismiss
the Metal Polishers' amended petition. We shall not place the Inter-
venor's name on the ballot, inasmuch as it has not complied with
Section 9 (f) and (h) of the amended Act.
We shall direct an election among the following employees in the
Employer's St. Louis plant :
All employees in the plating department, excluding the machinists
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Dazey Corporation, St. Louis,
Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Fourteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and
203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations--
5 On October 22, 1948, the Board issued to the parties an Order to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted In its reply to this Order , the Employer stated that it
would abide by whatever ruling was made on the motion by the Board. No response was
received from the Intervenor
, Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of
Members Houston, Reynolds, and Gray.
' In our prior decision in this case we found that while two employees in the plating
department are classified as machinists , only one, Frank Drewel, actually has the skill,
and does the work, of a machinist Our exclusion is accordingly limited to this one
position.
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the voting group
described above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers and Helpers, International Union, Local 13, AFL,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.